Ferrari Now writing Regulations for F1

[steve_r]

I, for one, am outraged about this. What ever it is. But please can someone explain to me what I am so outraged about again, because I seem to have forgotten.

[Moneyseeker]

Personally, I would not allow any teams to have any say on the regulations, where in other sports do the competitors get to frame/influence the rules - more so with the bigger 'voices' that have in the past. In UK footbal, you don't get some teams demanding longer pitches because their players are fitter or allowing them a small goal!

The FIA in conjunction with extremely ex-F1 designers, team managers - should create a workable set of rules that meet the objectives of F1, not Mercedes or Ferrari, etc. Present these to the teams and you either enter or you don't, with no veto on anything from any team.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Personally, I would not allow any teams to have any say on the regulations, where in other sports do the competitors get to frame/influence the rules - more so with the bigger 'voices' that have in the past. In UK footbal, you don't get some teams demanding longer pitches because their players are fitter or allowing them a small goal!

The FIA in conjunction with extremely ex-F1 designers, team managers - should create a workable set of rules that meet the objectives of F1, not Mercedes or Ferrari, etc. Present these to the teams and you either enter or you don't, with no veto on anything from any team.

Completely agree. And I would adjust the "objectives of F1" as well, so you're not targeting manufacturers.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Personally, I would not allow any teams to have any say on the regulations, where in other sports do the competitors get to frame/influence the rules - more so with the bigger 'voices' that have in the past. In UK footbal, you don't get some teams demanding longer pitches because their players are fitter or allowing them a small goal!

Football is not the best example to use.

The link may not appear as direct from the outside - but every professional football club in England is a member of The FA. The FA as a whole is member of The IFAB. The IFAB is the body that determines the Laws of the Game of association football.

So through democratic process - every professional football club in England can frame / influence the regulations of the sport.

If you look more closely at the EPL. The FA Premier League (FAPL) is operated as a corporation and is owned by the 20 member clubs. Each club is a shareholder, with one vote each on issues such as rule changes and contracts. The FAPL also sends representatives from clubs to UEFA's European Club Association, which determines certain regulations for European club competitions.

In fact - Football is not that dissimilar from Formula One when it comes to the influence of participants in the forming of regulations. The main difference seems to be that F1's link to technological development means that there is more visibility of regular change being influenced by teams.

[Casper]

I would like the FIA to explain how they go about ensuring that a car is legal every time it races. I have been through more scrutineering sessions than I could count and the idea of someone scrutineering an F1 car to anymore than weight, appearance and has it got four wheels boggles the mind simply because it is such a complex vehicle. The chances of cheating must be numerous with very little chance of getting caught.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Casper

I would like the FIA to explain how they go about ensuring that a car is legal every time it races. I have been through more scrutineering sessions than I could count and the idea of someone scrutineering an F1 car to anymore than weight, appearance and has it got four wheels boggles the mind simply because it is such a complex vehicle. The chances of cheating must be numerous with very little chance of getting caught.

They probably rely on the protest process from other teams (as we have seen with RP) as they are studying rival cars in more detail than the FIA ever could with all their 3D photography, sound recording of engines, etc.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Football is not the best example to use.

The link may not appear as direct from the outside - but every professional football club in England is a member of The FA. The FA as a whole is member of The IFAB. The IFAB is the body that determines the Laws of the Game of association football.

So through democratic process - every professional football club in England can frame / influence the regulations of the sport.

If you look more closely at the EPL. The FA Premier League (FAPL) is operated as a corporation and is owned by the 20 member clubs. Each club is a shareholder, with one vote each on issues such as rule changes and contracts. The FAPL also sends representatives from clubs to UEFA's European Club Association, which determines certain regulations for European club competitions.

In fact - Football is not that dissimilar from Formula One when it comes to the influence of participants in the forming of regulations. The main difference seems to be that F1's link to technological development means that there is more visibility of regular change being influenced by teams.

Noted! But none the less, you don't see premier league teams trying to fundamentally shape the rules to suit their best option of winning, changing the format of the game?

One area I guess we have seen influence is the cap on spending on players outside of the clubs actual income to stop the billionaires simply buying their way to titles over and above the actual, real income the club generates. So I guess this is similar to the budget cap that F1 is proposing to introduce.

[chillibowl]

NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL...the teams/owners all sit on the governing and rules committee boards. they either do so directly or through their proxies.

If not those who compete, im not sure who should have influence over the rules.

Surely not the fans.

Of course the process should be as transparent as possible and not unilateral.

As for the engine mapping...doesnt Merc have to agree (unanimous) as the rule change is in season?

Might even be to Merc's advantage that no one else can do it so now they dont have to worry about others during quali while putting less stress on their engines?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Noted! But none the less, you don't see premier league teams trying to fundamentally shape the rules to suit their best option of winning, changing the format of the game?

A bit of apples and oranges here. Imagine if they didn't use humans (which all things considered are relatively "static" from a performance perspective), but instead were building robot players to a defined "specification". Some will be building better robots and you know at some point the loosing teams will be pushing to outlaw innovations that impact play on the field.

My perception that human centric team sports are governed by a combination of...

* Budget
* How the team is run (management, coaches, etc.)

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

One area I guess we have seen influence is the cap on spending on players outside of the clubs actual income to stop the billionaires simply buying their way to titles over and above the actual, real income the club generates. So I guess this is similar to the budget cap that F1 is proposing to introduce.

Yes. This puts a ceiling on the budget item above. At that point it is a more level playing field as it comes down to the team as a whole (with individual stars for sure).

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

What is this about? Can someone provide a link to a news item?

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I'm guessing - but I think it is linking the fact that Ferrari are not happy about the Quali modes for engine mapping being used by Mercedes, and the FIA now deciding they are not permitted in future races?

I wanted this part separate from my post above to Moneyseeker as this comment is about the entire thread.

I generally think the broad conclusions being reached here about Ferrari is ridiculous. The thread presented itself as factual. Shame on me for taking it as fact with my first reply. You guys suckered me in!

I have no love for Ferrari, but my perspective is that this is being done because the business side knows the sport side needs to change, but has pushed (bad decision in my opinion) the implementation of most changes until 2022. Plus they put in a development freeze until then, the sport is struggling to survive in a difficult seasons and lastly, Mercedes continues to romp.

This is primarily Liberty/FIA trying to even up competition before 2022. They don't want 2021 to be a repeat of 2020. How is this a shock to anyone? This type of disruption is the core of 2022 technical regulations and associated cost caps? As they have somewhat screwed themselves by delaying to 2022, then they have little options but to tweak the current situation. They can't ask teams to "redesign", so they are taking away options (such as engine mode flexibility). This ends up being a relatively "zero" cost way to do this.

Unfair for Mercedes? Sure! Might the non-Mercedes powered teams have been suggesting/pushing for this? Absolutely. They no doubt whine and complain all the time! Does Mercedes advocate for their advantage behind the scene? They would be a fool not to do so!

But the business is trying to self correct and that will impact the sport side of things.

Richard

[Moneyseeker]

Interesting and quite frank comments from Ferrari Chairman John Elkman on Ferrari's quite long standing weaknesses..

"[Ferrari is going] through a difficult period that starts far back," Elkann told Italian newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport.

"We have not won a constructors' world championship since 2008 nor a drivers' one since 2007.

"There has been Red Bull's winning cycle thanks to aerodynamic capacity and then Mercedes for their great ability in hybrid engine technologies.

"This year we are not competitive thanks to project errors. We have had a number of structural weaknesses that have existed for some time in aerodynamics and in the dynamics of the vehicle. We have also lost out in engine power.

Clearly he believes that Ferrari didn't really have the expertise in hybrid tech, although Ferrari are now going to put this in future road cars we have not seen FCA early adopting hybrid and EV tech like Mercedes and others in their road cars. I believe that prior to his death Marchionne was allegedly trying to unwind the Agnelli family stake in FIAT and build alliances/mergers with other car makers as FIAT simply had not invested in the tech themselves, instead adopting a policy of sweating the 500 model to pay down debt. Subsequently of course this happended with a PSA merger giving FCA cars access to PSA platforms and hybrid/ev tech.

[S griffin]

At last, a bit of honesty from the Scuderia! At least they can be transparent on some issues

[GT6]

honesty yes but suspect that statement will mean he has a limited lifespan at Ferrari

[chillibowl]

John Elkman is the business head of the Agnelli family so i suppose he could always fire himself.

but jokes aside, i think his harsh assessment has to believed because he is not talking to the fans, but to the markets. if anything he may even be down playing the race team's issues.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Interesting and quite frank comments from Ferrari Chairman John Elkman on Ferrari's quite long standing weaknesses..

"[Ferrari is going] through a difficult period that starts far back," Elkann told Italian newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport.

"We have not won a constructors' world championship since 2008 nor a drivers' one since 2007.

"There has been Red Bull's winning cycle thanks to aerodynamic capacity and then Mercedes for their great ability in hybrid engine technologies.

"This year we are not competitive thanks to project errors. We have had a number of structural weaknesses that have existed for some time in aerodynamics and in the dynamics of the vehicle. We have also lost out in engine power.

Clearly he believes that Ferrari didn't really have the expertise in hybrid tech, although Ferrari are now going to put this in future road cars we have not seen FCA early adopting hybrid and EV tech like Mercedes and others in their road cars. I believe that prior to his death Marchionne was allegedly trying to unwind the Agnelli family stake in FIAT and build alliances/mergers with other car makers as FIAT simply had not invested in the tech themselves, instead adopting a policy of sweating the 500 model to pay down debt. Subsequently of course this happended with a PSA merger giving FCA cars access to PSA platforms and hybrid/ev tech.

And this explains the tie up between FIAT and Tesla

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwXsY7IcrO8